w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


R. Soundrarajan v/s The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others

    WP. Nos. 31442 to 31444 of 2015 & MP. Nos. 1, 1 & 1 of 2015
    Decided On, 01 December 2022
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
    For the Petitioner: D. Arunachalam, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1,R2 & R11, T.M. Pappiah, AGP, R3 to R7, PK. Sivasubramaniam, R8, W.S.R. Abirami, R9, S.I. Samiullah, R10, V. Raghavachari, Advocates.


Judgment Text
(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from register the documents of the Sale Deed presented by the respondents 3 to 7 executed in favour of the 8th respondent as pending Document No.P81 in the office of the 2nd respondent in respect of property situated at S.No.97/3E, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, No.9, Naravarikuppam Village, now Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvellore District and direct them to return the same Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from register the documents of the Sale Deed presented by the respondents 3 to 7 executed in favour of the 8th respondent as pending Document No.P82 in the office of the 2nd respondent in respect of property situated at S.No.97/3E, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, No.9, Naravarikuppam Village, now Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvellore District and direct them to return the same

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from register the documents of the Sale Deed presented by the respondents 3 to 7 executed in favour of the 8th respondent as pending Document No.P83 in the office of the 2nd respondent in respect of property situated at S.No.97/3E, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, No.9, Naravarikuppam Village, now Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvellore District and direct them to return the same)

Common Order

(1) In all the above writ petitions, the parties are the same and the reliefs are in respect of three different documents of sale executed by respondents 3 to 7 in favour of 8th respondent and presented for registration before the 2nd respondent. Since common issue arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, the above writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2) The prayer in all the writ petitions is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from registering the documents of Sale Deeds executed by the respondents 3 to 7 executed in favour of the 8th respondent and presented and pending for registration vide Documents No.P81, P82 and P83 in the office of the 2nd respondent in respect of property situated at S.No.97/3E, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, No.9, Naravarikuppam Village, now Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvellore District and to direct them to return the same.

(3) An extent of 3710 sq.ft., of land in S.NO.97/3E of Naravarikuppam Village along with the building bearing Door No.9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, originally belonged to one Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal, grandmother of the petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that his grandmother Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal executed a registered Settlment Deed dated 10.12.1997 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The writ petitioner further states that the said Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal even before executing the Settlement Deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, had executed a Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the petitioner and that she had entered into an Agreement of Sale with the petitioner after receiving valuable consideration and therefore, the petitioner contends that the subsequent Settlement Deed executed in favour of the 3rd respondent is not a valid document and hence, the 3rd respondent cannot claim any right over the property.

(4) The petitioner admitted the fact that the 3rd respondent has filed a suit in OS.No.176/2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvotriyur, for bare injunction. Though he further admits that the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the petitioner herein as against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Ponneri, in AS.No.8/2011, it is stated by the petitioner that a Second Appeal filed by him in SA.No.1165/2013 is pending before this Court.

(5) It is also admitted by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent along with her husband and three sons, who are respondents 4 to 7 in the writ petition, executed three Sale Deeds dated 07.09.2015 in favour of the 8th respondent and his wife and son and that all the three documents of Sale dated 07.09.2015 were presented for registration by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent. The documents of Sale executed by the 3rd respondent and others in favour of the 8th respondent and others are pending vide Documents No.P81, P82 and P83.

(6) The petitioner submitted representations before the 2nd respondent stating that the superstructure belonged to the petitioner and that the land belonged to a Wakf known as 'Thurukkan Chatram Trust'. On the pretext that the petitioner is the owner of the superstructure and the land belongs to Thurukkan Chatram, the petitioner called upon the 2nd respondent not to register any Sale Deed or any other document that may be executed by the 3rd respondent and her children in respect of the property namely, Door No.9, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Red Hills, Chennai-52.

(7) The 2nd respondent namely, the Sub Registrar, Red Hills, Chennai, rejected the representations for the following reason:

“TAMIL”

(8) The petitioner without even challenging the order of the Sub Registrar refusing to entertain the representations of the petitioner, has filed the above writ petitions with the aforesaid prayer.

(9) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute regarding title to the property proposed to be conveyed under the documents is pending before this Court and therefore, the Registering Authority namely the 2nd respondent herein cannot register the documents. Since objection raised by the petitioner is that the property itself belonged to a Wakf, it is stated that the Registering Authority is not supposed to register the document in view of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. This Court is unable to accept any of the contentions of the petitioner.

(10) The learned counsel relied upon several documents to show that the properties stands in the name of Wakf. From the counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent, it is seen that the properties belongs to a public Trust namely, Thurukkan Chatram Trust which is also registered as a Wakf coming under the supervisory control of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the 10th respondent herein. Though the properties belongs to the Wakf it is admitted by the 9th respondent Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal was the tenant of the Wakf in respect of the land. The counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also shows that parties admit the title of the land in favour of the Wakf and there is no dispute in respect of the same. However, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that the vacant land was leased out to Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal with a right to put up construction and the building in the leasehold land belonged to Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal.

(11) From the facts admitted before this Court, it is seen that there is no dispute with regard to title and the transfer is in respect of the leasehold right and ownership over the building. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his argument is that the Sub Registrar, ignoring his duty, sent a letter to the Wakf Board asking them to clarify whether the property in S.No.97/3E belongs to the Wakf and to give a No Objection Certificate for registration of the documents pertaining to the property. This Court is unable to find any irregularity in the communication dated 11.09.2015 produced before this Court to show that the 2nd respondent has requested the Wakf Board to give No Objection Certificate for registering the documents. It is to be noted that Section 22-A [1] [i] and [iv] of the Registration Act specifically authorise the Registrar to refuse registration of any document if the instrument is relating to the transfer of immovable property by way of a Sale Deed, Mortgage, Exchange of Lease of any Wakf which comes under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf Act.

(12) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and Another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, HR&CE Department, Chennai-34 and Others reported in 2017 [2] LW 637 has dealt with the scope of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and held in paragraph No.25 as follows:-

25. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

(i) The registering authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the objector / religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an order having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.

(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.

(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22- A of the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the religious institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ petition seeking cancellation of the registration or for any other relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration of the title and for other consequential reliefs.

(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register the document acting on the objections raised by a religious institution under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court for declaration of title and other relief without availing the opportunity for filing a statutory appeal.

(v) We further direct that if the deed has already been registered without there being any objection by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the document shall be returned to the parties concerned leaving it open for the religious institution to approach either the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Civil Court for appropriate relief as indicated above. At any rate, the registering authority shall not withhold the deed which has already been registered.

(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

(13) If we examine the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 11.09.2015 in the light of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the Sub Registrar has done his duty in accordance with law by issuing notice to the Wakf. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity.

(14) The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are rival claimants. The petitioner admits the factum of a Settlement Deed executed by his grandmother in favour of the 3rd respondent. From the statements and averments in the affidavits, this Court is unable to find any clue as to the pendency of a suit challenging the Settlement Deed executed by Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal in favour of the 3rd respondent and others. The suit filed by the 3rd respondent for permanent injunction is decreed. Even assuming that this Court allows the Second Appeal in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will not get title to the property. The petitioner claims title on the basis of the so-called Agr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eement and a Power of Attorney Deed stated to have executed by Tmt.Ammakannu Ammal @ Alamelu Ammal. A mere Agreement does not create any interest in immovable property and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to obstruct or stall the registration of a document executed by the 3rd respondent and others in favour of the 8th respondent and others. (15) When this Court examined the power of registration, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, this Court is unable to see any specific provision which enables the Registrar to consider the question of title on the objection raised by a third party to the document. Though the petitioner claims title to the property, the petitioner has not produced any document to prove his right or ownership. The documents executed by the 3rd respondent and others in favour of the 8th respondent and others is valid if the same is only in respect of leasehold right and the building if it is established that the 3rd respondent has title to the building. (16) For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the writ petitions are devoid of any merits and are liable to be dismissed. (17) Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R